At a press conference in California on Friday, President Barack Obama took questions and gave a forceful defense of the PRISM program. PRISM was revealed yesterday by two newspapers who showed that several American tech companies have been complicit in providing the government with access to their systems. In addition, Obama also responded to the disclosure of a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over metadata to the National Security Agency.

“When I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any other,” he said, according to The Guardian, one of the two news outlets that revealed the secret program.

“Number one, to keep the American people safe. And number two, to uphold the constitution and constitutional rights to privacy and to civil liberties. These programs are secret in the sense that they're classified. But they're not secret in the sense that—when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed."

"I think it's important to recognize you can't have 100 percent security and also 100 percent privacy, and also zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

Earlier this week, The Guardian detailed a court order requiring Verizon to hand over millions of phone records every day. However, the PRISM program appears to entail direct access to digital services by the FBI and the National Security Administration—and not phone calls.

“When it comes to telephone calls: Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” the president continued. “That's not what this program's about. What the intelligence community is doing is identifying, looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people's names, and they're not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may find potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If they want to actually listen to a phone call, they have to go back to a federal judge. I want to be very clear. Some of what we've been hearing the last day or so—nobody's listening to the content of your phone calls. This program is overseen... not only by Congress but by a special [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court.”

“They’re professionals”

According to The Washington Post, the other news outlet that broke the story, the commander-in-chief also reiterated what the director of national intelligence described late Thursday—that the PRISM program is focused on foreigners and not citizens or residents.

“They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said, adding that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of US citizens and US residents.”

The Guardian also quoted Obama as essentially saying he trusts America’s spy agencies, and we should too.

“I will leave this office at some point,” he said. “And after that I will be a private citizen. And I would expect that on the list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their e-mails—I'd probably be pretty high on that list. But I know that the people who are involved in these programs... They're professionals.”

“In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance,” Obama said.

“The program does not allow the government to listen in on anyone’s phone calls”

“Although this program has been properly classified, the leak of one order, without any context, has created a misleading impression of how it operates,” he wrote. “Accordingly, we have determined to declassify certain limited information about this program.”

He continued:

The program does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone’s phone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber. The only type of information acquired under the Court’s order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.

The collection is broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications. Acquiring this information allows us to make connections related to terrorist activities over time. The [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Court specifically approved this method of collection as lawful, subject to stringent restrictions.

. . .

By order of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court], the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. All information that is acquired under this program is subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization. Only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the Court-approved procedures may even access the records.

. . .

The Patriot Act was signed into law in October 2001 and included authority to compel production of business records and other tangible things relevant to an authorized national security investigation with the approval of the FISC. This provision has subsequently been reauthorized over the course of two Administrations—in 2006 and in 2011. It has been an important investigative tool that has been used over the course of two Administrations, with the authorization and oversight of the FISC and the Congress.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government cannot snoop without a warrant.

You only put people under surveillance if you fear them. Democracy is not compatible with the government fearing the people it supposedly represents.

The problem with all the statements released is this: they basically come down to a restatement of "Trust us, we're good guys." Even assuming that's true, there is no reason to believe the next set of people in office—or the ones after that—will also be good guys.

Moreover, it should be quite clear to anyone who's been paying attention that "terrorist-related activities" (from the second statement) has been and will continue to be construed quite broadly. Worse, it can easily be construed yet more broadly. This is incredibly easy to abuse. As such, it will be abused. That is human nature.

This is, by the way, the most important issue about government there can be. Under constant government surveillance, no significant shifts in power are likely to be possible.

If they'd had this in the 1960s, MLK would be in a forgotten grave somewhere, as they've have rolled up his entire network, silencing them with invented charges and long jail sentences. (they're already known to do this: see Judi Bari for an example.)

As soon as the government actually feels threatened, these supposed 'terrorist protections' will be immediately deployed against the citizens. See: Occupy protests.

This is the real reason they're doing it. Not to protect against terrorists, but to protect against you.

There is no choice when it comes to the Bill of Rights. I don't care if your personal priority is security. It cannot trump the Constitution. As a Constitutional scholar, I would expect the President to know that.

the FISA argument is total BS. someone correct me if i'm wrong, but FISA courts pretty much rubber stamp all requests they get, and btw who oversees their decisions on warrants? if memory serves me correct, no one?

You can justify just about anything if people are gullible enough to believe it. .The Government should fear us not the other way around. Governments do not have good track records. Sorry, I don't buy it.

So any specific discussion of Prism was notably absent from his remarks. But what I worry about is this:

Quote:

I will leave this office at some point,” he said. “And after that I will be a private citizen. And I would expect that on the list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their e-mails—I'd probably be pretty high on that list. But I know that the people who are involved in these programs... They're professionals.

In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance.

Okay, so what if I still don't agree with you? Can I bring a legal challenge to a program such as Prism in court? No, because the same administration that promised unprecedented transparency takes such measures as to keep the public in the dark. Even if I knew that I was subject to Prism, how could I prove that I have standing to challenge it in court? The nature of these programs subverts a system of checks and balances. I should note that the President shouldn't be alien to these concerns, given that he said this when he was a senator:

Quote:

If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they’ve read and phone calls they’ve made, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law... No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.

At least they've gone through the FISA court to do this, and it still falls under some auspices of the Patriot Act, so it's not totally extra-legal. Still, this leaves a bad taste. The Patriot Act has always had an Orwellian ring to it, and this revelation comes soon after some decidedly extra-legal behavior from the IRS.

I'll take maybe 50% security with 100% privacy and 0 inconvenience, then. That sounds better than the current setup of 0% security, 0% privacy, and non-zero inconvenience.

im curious what inconvenience are you experiencing? I still dont like whats going on, but it has been going on for 12 years and ive never noticed being inconvenienced.

I freely admit, I don't believe I've been inconvenienced directly by this piece of surveillance, but all of the ancillary security theater that's part of the same initiative? I recall being quite inconvenienced on my last business trip when it took an hour to get through the security checkpoint.

"These programs are secret in the sense that they're classified. But they're not secret in the sense that—when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed."

Does anyone else get the feeling that Congress is consistently representing fewer and fewer of the nation's interests? Last Congress was the least productive in history, and this Congress is on track to be even less productive, due to partisan squabbling; and yet, they can all agree that a broadly overreaching policy that rests on "trust us, we have your best interests in mind, we promise," is what the public wants?

Is a Congress that actually represents the wills and defends the liberties of the population too much to ask, or have we moved past that as well?

According to The Washington Post, the other news outlet that broke the story, the commander-in-chief also re-iterated what the director of national intelligence described late Thursday—that PRISM program is focused on foreigners, and not citizens or residents.

At least they've gone through the FISA court to do this, and it still falls under some auspices of the Patriot Act, so it's not totally extra-legal. Still, this leaves a bad taste. The Patriot Act has always had an Orwellian ring to it, and this revelation comes soon after some decidedly extra-legal behavior from the IRS.

"I think it's important to recognize you can't have 100 percent security and also 100 percent privacy, and also zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

Bullshit. Spying and dragnetting records isn't going to keep us safe. Every single person on US soil that took part in the 9/11 attacks was on a watch/most wanted list, and we didn't do shit. It's not because we needed more data, it's because we're idiots and didn't know how to use the data we had. Nothing has changed, except the government now has MORE data that they don't know what to do with.

If we have to make a choice, I choose that you stop spying on me and actually use the data you already have.

"We"?? What's this we part??? Classified activities, especially those behind the veil of Patriot Act, aren't exactly on the party platforms during elections or on the congressional schedules for debate.

Given security, privacy, and inconvenience as tradeoffs, I would keep "convenience" and let them spy on me as long as it doesn't bother me. I really don't like being blown up by bombs. I know a lot of people will vote "down" on this, but I'm not trolling, I actually feel that way.

I actually think that if more people speak their minds like this, we could actually make progress towards resolving the issue.